Leadership as Mission Critical: Latinas/os, the … › bitstream › handle › 10919 ›...

Running Head: LEADERSHIP AS MISSION CRITICAL

Leadership as Mission Critical: Latinas/os, the Military, and

Affirmative Action in Higher Education

Abstract


2

By focusing on the U.S. Military’s support of affirmative action in recent affirmative action

cases, this conceptual paper posits that there are lessons to be learned from the Military by

postsecondary scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers who support race-conscious policies in

higher education. This suggestion rests on two points—first, the Military’s explicit focus and

reasoning for diversifying its leadership corps, and second, the Military’s explicit race-conscious

approach to racial integration.

Keywords: affirmative action, diversity, higher education, leadership, military,


3

Introduction

The educational futures of Latinas/os in the twenty-first century exist in a curious

paradox.1 At the same time that demographic indicators confirm that Latinas/os remain among

the fastest growing racial/ethnic groups in the nation (Brown, 2014; Gándara, 2010), and just as

more Latinas/os aspire towards postsecondary education (Delgado Bernal, Alemán, Jr, & Flores

Carmona, 2008; Delgado Bernal, Alemán, Jr, & Garavito, 2009; Pew Research Center, 2015;

Stepler, 2016), race-conscious affirmative action policies—historically vital for helping

Latinas/os integrate the nation’s most selective colleges and universities—are under threat of

cessation. Since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Regents of the University of

California v. Bakke (1978), 25 years would pass before the Supreme Court once again

deliberated over the future of affirmative action in higher education in the University of

Michigan cases Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003).2 However, more

1 While I employ the terms Latinas/os throughout this paper, I recognize the importance of the

experiences of Trans and Gender Non-Conforming identities through the term “Latinx.”

2 In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), a case long considered as the

seminal affirmative action case in higher education, Allan Bakke, a White male, brought suit

against the Medical School at the University of California at Davis after being denied admission

in 1973 and 1974. Bakke contended that UC Davis’ practice of designating 16 of its 100

admission slots for traditionally under-represented students represented an illegal special

admissions program. While the Supreme Court agreed that UC Davis’ admissions practices were

suspect, the Court also upheld the school’s use of race-conscious practices as a “plus” factor in

university admissions. In the University of Michigan affirmative action cases Grutter v.

Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court was tasked with ruling over


4

recently, in a span of less than five years the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in three

cases intended specifically on dismantling affirmative action in higher education—Fisher v.

University of Texas (2013), Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014), and

Fisher v. University of Texas (expected 2016).3 At the same time, additional lawsuits alleging

discriminatory treatment against Asian American students have been filed against Harvard

University and the University of North Carolina, spearheaded by Project on Fair

Representation—one of a dedicated collective of non-profit organizations resolved on ending

the legality of race-conscious affirmative action practices in higher education admissions.

Plaintiffs for each case were White women, Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter, each of whom

alleged that minority students were granted admissions preferences because of their race over

“better qualified” students like themselves. Ultimately, the Court would hand down a split

decision, ruling against the University’s undergraduate admissions practices in Gratz while at the

same time endorsing the holistic and individualized application of race-conscious admissions in

Michigan’s law-school case Grutter.

3 In 2013 the Supreme Court ruled in Fisher v. University of Texas (Fisher I). In this case, a

white woman Abigail Fisher alleged that the reason that she did not earn admissions into the

University of Texas at Austin was because of UT’s use alleged illegal admissions preferences for

students of color. While the case was heard before the Supreme Court, it was sent back to the

Circuit for rehearing. – In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2015) the Supreme

Court ruled affirmed the use of state ballot initiatives to disallow affirmative action practices. In

December 2015, the Supreme Court in a rehearing of Fisher v. University of Texas (Fisher II)-the

pending decision is expected by June 2016.


5

race-conscious affirmative action practices (Cokorinos, 2003).4 Whether by constitutional

decree or electoral mandate, for more than two decades opponents of race-conscious policies

have mounted sizeable campaigns with the aim of bringing all affirmative action practices to an

end (Cokorinos, 2003).5 In response proponents of affirmative action have worked hard to

assemble a multi-pronged defense of race-conscious policies. Postsecondary scholars,

practitioners, and policy-makers committed to defending race-conscious practices have produced

a rigorous body of research literature to underscore the continued relevancy and benefits of

supporting the limited use of race in areas, such as university admissions. Whether through

empirical or theoretical studies, supporters of race-conscious affirmative action have detailed the

many benefits of diversity (Chang, 1999; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Milem, Clayton-

Pedersen, Hurtado, Allen, 1998; Milem, Chang, Antonio, 2005; Misa, Denson, Saenz, & Chang,

2006; Smith & Schonfeld, 2000),6 an established byproduct of race-conscious affirmative action

policy. Yet even in the face of such a robust defense, the future of affirmative action in higher

education, as well as the futures of those that rely on this policy to access the nation’s most

selective postsecondary institutions, remain in a precarious state of jeopardy.

4 See https://www.projectonfairrepresentation.org/

5 In 1996 voters approved Proposition 209, “The California Civil Rights Initiative,” which ended

race-conscious affirmative action in the state’s public hiring, contracting, and public higher

education system.. Proposition 209 has become the template by which critics of affirmative

action to dismantle race-conscious policies through legislative means. To date, seven states have

mandated the end of affirmative action via the ballot initiative process.

6 Please note, that this is just a very small sampling of the vast body of research literature on the

benefits of diversity and cross-racial interaction in higher education.

https://www.projectonfairrepresentation.org/


6

As proponents of race-conscious policies in higher education strategize to plan for

affirmative action’s uncertain future, I propose that looking into how other institutions practice

affirmative action may prove instructive. More specifically, in this conceptual paper I posit that

postsecondary scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers who support race-conscious affirmative

action policies in higher education must glean lessons from the U.S. Military’s approach to

affirmative action and racial integration. My suggestion for this approach is twofold—first, the

Military’s explicit focus and reasoning for diversifying its leadership corps provides a much-

needed ideological model for diversifying leadership in higher education. Second, in response to

the continued assault on affirmative action, the Military’s explicit race-conscious approach to

racial integration compels postsecondary scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers to reimagine

and work towards recapturing the moral imperative that informs affirmative action’s

compensatory or restorative justice rationale, which has been all but abandoned in higher

education.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that all of the Military’s approaches to racial

diversification are ideal and problem-free. I recognize that an important impetus for the

military’s push towards embracing racial integration has historically been driven by Bell’s

(1980) interest convergence principle. What I am suggesting is that for Latinas/os, as well as

other historically minoritized populations, the continuance of race-conscious policies in higher

education matters. After all, studies tell us that students who attend selective institutions, within

which affirmative action policies are most commonly practiced, are more likely to persist

towards graduation as well as more likely to pursue post-baccalaureate study (Carnevale & Rose,

2003; Carnevale & Strohl, 2013; Oseguera & Astin, 2004). As such, even while minoritized

students are by and large concentrated in the nation’s two-year and four-year comprehensive


7

colleges (Carnevale & Strohl, 2013; Solorzano, Villalpando, & Oseguera, 2005), ensuring access

to the nation’s most selective colleges and universities remains imperative. For this reason, I

propose that interrogating the U.S. Military’s approach to affirmative action and racial

integration offers valuable lessons for postsecondary scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers

who are committed to defending race-conscious affirmative action policies and practices from

current and future legal challenges.

This paper is laid out in four sections, beginning with an overview of race in the U.S.

Military. This section is followed by an exposition on historical and contemporary linkages

between the military and higher education, including an examination of the prominent role of the

military amicus briefs in defending race-conscious affirmative action in higher education. I next

address the importance of leadership diversification in the military. Finally, I conclude by

addressing how leadership diversification might be utilized to challenge structured inequity in

higher education, especially on the heels of movements such as “Black Lives Matter.”

Racial Realism in the Military

As with all race-conscious policy analysis, context matters (Brayboy, 2005; Crenshaw,

2007; Dixson & Rosseau, 2005; Museus, Ledesma, & Parker, 2015; Ladson-Billings & Tate,

1995). Likewise, to understand my proposal that there are compelling reasons why the military

offers important lessons for proponents of affirmative action practices in higher education, it is

necessary to understand the context within which I situate this argument. To begin, I clarify

what this paper is not intended to do. For instance, I am not debating whether the military is a

viable model of economic mobility for historically disenfranchised groups. I am well aware of

the problematic histories that frame the participation of historically minoritized communities in

the military. Many previous scholars (Buenavista, 2012; Furumoto, 2005; Garza, 2015;


8

Mariscal, 2004, 2005; Monforti & McGlynn, 2010) have already problematized the

interdependent relationship between the military and historically disenfranchised populations,

including how low-income and marginalized people are specifically targeted and especially

susceptible to military recruitment. Therefore I am not advocating for the expansion of the

military industrial complex in any way, shape, or form. Additionally, I am most certainly not

calling for the increased recruitment and enlistment of already overrepresented and vulnerable

populations within the military, including low-income, rural and inner-city youth.

I am also not arguing that the military operates in a problem-free environment. A critical

analysis of racial integration within the U.S. Military reveals a long and complicated history (Alt

& Alt, 2002; Burk & Espinoza, 2012; Donaldson, 1991; Hope, 1979; MacGregor, Jr., 1981;

Moskos & Bulter, 1996; Nalty & MacGregor, 1981). Indeed, in many respects the enlistment

growth of servicemen and servicewomen of color in the military is the product of the

impoverished socio-economic and educational opportunities that continue to plague poor and

minoritized communities (Buenavista, 2012; Furumoto, 2005; Garza, 2015; Monforti &

McGlynn, 2010), rather than a result of progressive military policies. Furthermore, a review of

military literature reveals that there is focused attention on understanding and addressing the

obstacles and opportunities surrounding the military recruitment and enlistment of historically

under-represented populations, with special attention paid to “Hispanic” youth (Asch, Buck,

Klerman, Kleykamp, & Loughran, 2009; Dempsey & Shapiro, 2009). In his study of Latinos

and the military, Mariscal (2003) suggests that by “[u]sing the carrot of money for college and

technical training” military officials have purposely “. . . appealed to the relatively uncritical

patriotism of Latino immigrant families and relied on the reality of high Latino high-school drop

out rates, low number of college degrees . . . and limited career opportunities” (p. 348) to track


9

Latinos into the armed forces. In other words, the “poverty draft” is alive and well in the U.S.

Armed Forces (Furumoto, 2005; Mariscal, 2004; Monforti & McGlynn, 2010) and Latinos—

among other historically disenfranchised communities—continue to be core targets for military

recruitment and enlistment (Asch et al., 2009; Buenavista, 2012; Buenavista & Gonzales, 2010;

Lutz, 2008).

For these and other reasons, the military’s move towards racial integration epitomizes

Bell’s (1980; 2004) interest convergence principle, which asserts that the interests of minoritized

populations will be accommodated only when these align with and/or advance majoritarian

interests. Dating as far back as the American Revolutionary War, the military has exploited this

codependent relationship. For example, enslaved African Americans were often promised

emancipation if they fought alongside colonists to defeat British troops (Hope, 1979). However,

this gesture happened only after the British were the first to propose liberty to those slaves who

deserted the colonies and joined the efforts of British loyalists (Hope, 1979). As Hope (1979)

observed, “One should understand that the integration of forces did not derive from altruism on

the part of the colonial government; rather, the real motive for using black [sic] troops was to

alleviate the army’s desperate shortage of men” (p. 11). In every war since, the armed forces

have depended on servicemen—increasingly servicewomen of color—to do their work.

Furthermore, the advent of an all-volunteer force in 1973, coupled within a backdrop of

perpetual combat operations in a post-9/11 world, has necessitated that the military work hard to

both enlarge and maintain a viable service pool; and Latina/o and other vulnerable youth are at

the crosshairs of these efforts.

While providing a thorough and critical analysis of the history and legacy of racial

integration within the military’s enlisted ranks is an important exercise, it is beyond the scope of


10

this paper. Instead this paper zeroes in on the significance of the military’s emphasis on

leadership diversity as well as its explicit race-conscious rationale for racial diversification. I

propose that the U.S. Military’s explicit attention to leadership diversity offers a compelling

ideological model for diversifying leadership in higher education. Furthermore, I argue that

while the military offers an imperfect model of racial diversification, its approach to race-

conscious policies have already proven compelling to the Supreme Court (Lipson, 2008). I

revisit the key role that the Military has played in shaping contemporary higher education, as

well as address how the Military helped safeguard race-conscious affirmative action policies in

higher education in the twenty-first century.

The Military, Higher Education, and Lessons from the Green Brief

For good or bad American higher education is inextricably linked to the U.S. Armed

Forces through a long and synergetic history. (Abrams, 1989; Cohen & Kisker, 2009; Thelin,

2011). The Military has had a direct hand in shaping contemporary American higher education,

beginning with the passage of 1862’s College Land Grant/Morrill Act during the Civil War, to

the enactment of the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (better known as the G.I. Bill) in 1944 at

the peak of World War II. Governmental—more explicitly, military—funding during the

twentieth century’s global arms race enabled the growth of higher education and aided in the

development of today’s research university (Kerr, 2001). More recently, government financing

to fund the growth and development of STEM fields in higher education has closely intertwined

with military objectives (Kuenzi, 2008).

Ironically, while the Military is best known as a conservative, purposefully rigid,

historically racist and sexist hierarchical organization, perhaps less well known is the fact that


11

the military has been a pioneer of racial integration. Reflecting on this history, Donaldson

(1991) remarked:

This long, incomplete process of eliminating racism from the military has not received

the place it deserves in American history as a part of the American black civil rights

movement. It was a significant part of that movement, but many of the advances attained

in the military took place outside of the public eye; they were kept quiet by the military,

and off the evening news. In fact, many of the civil rights advances achieved by

marching in the South and rioting in the North among the civilian population were

achieved first in the military. (p. 174)

In effect, the military’s 1948 move towards racial integration predates both the Brown v.

Board of Education (1954) and Bakke (1978) decisions, each of which represent iconic

educational civil rights cases in K–12 and higher education, respectively. Military sociologists

Moskos and Butler (1996) have noted:

At the time when Afro-Americans were still arguing for their educational rights before

the Supreme Court and marching for their social and political rights in the Deep South,

the Army had become desegregated with little fanfare. (p. 31)

Of course, each branch of the armed forces has had its own unique trajectory towards

racial integration. Nevertheless, as Bakke (1978) made its way through District and Circuit

Courts, on its path towards the Supreme Court, the Military was already busy implementing race-

conscious affirmative action policies and practices on a large-scale basis through the

development of the Defense Race Relations Institute (DRRI). Established by the Department of

Defense (DoD) in 1971 the DRRI continues in operation to this day under the name the Defense

Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI). Like its predecessor DEOMI was

established with the goal of changing behavior through education (Hope, 1978; Moskos &

Butler, 1996). DEOMI offers education and training programs in human relations, equal

opportunity, and diversity, as a foundational means of building character and leadership across

the armed forces. Indeed, the themes of leadership and character building would prove to be


12

important in the Military’s defense of race-conscious affirmative action in higher education.

Next I address the central role that the Military played in defending race-conscious affirmative

action practices in higher education.

The Military’s Defense of Affirmative Action in Higher Education

There is general consensus that one of the primary reasons that the limited use of race-

conscious affirmative action policies withstood scrutiny in the University of Michigan’s Law

School case Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) was in large part due to the volume of amicus curiae or

friend of the court briefs filed in support of the University of Michigan.7 Among the slew of

amicus briefs filed in support of race-conscious affirmative action, the Consolidated Brief of Lt.

Gen. Julius W. Becton, et al. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents stood apart (Groner,

2003; Moller, 2004; Parker, 2006; Walbot & Lang, 2003). The “Green Brief”—as it was dubbed

by Associate Justice David Souter during Grutter’s oral argument—filed on behalf of a

collective of high-ranking civilian and military leaders made a notable impression on the Court.8

7 Amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs may be submitted to the Supreme Court from a

wide spectrum of parties and interest groups. Amicus briefs allow for democratic participation

in a high stakes court case by parties beyond the petitioner and respondent. Though there are

divergent thoughts on the usefulness of friend of the court briefs, amicus briefs can be seen as a

gauge of public opinion on particular issues. The briefs themselves are “not neutral sources of

information” (Collins, 2004, p. 808) but rather, “briefs are advocates for their parties” (Collins,

2004, p. 808).

8 The Military Brief was supported by a total of 29 signatories from all branches of military

service. The Fisher I Military Brief included 37 signatories—including for the first time a female


13

During oral arguments alone the Green Brief was explicitly referenced a total of fifteen times.

The Brief was also explicitly cited in both the Court’s opinion announcement, as well as in the

Court’s final written majority opinion.

In authoring the Court’s majority opinion, Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cited

only a few selective amicus briefs to explain the reasoning behind the Court’s decision to uphold

the limited use of race in university admissions.9 Featured very prominently among these briefs

was the Green Brief. In explaining the value of diversity—a byproduct of race-conscious

affirmative action policies—O’Connor (in)famously proclaimed, “These [diversity] benefits are

signatory. While Fisher II’s Military Brief included 36 signatories, including most notably two

women.

9 In the Supreme Court’s final opinions only 11 of the 97 briefs were named or referenced.

Justice O’Connor’s majority opinion in Grutter cited six briefs, including the joint Brief of the

American Educational Research Association, the Association of American Colleges and

Universities, and the American Association of Higher Education as amici curiae in support of

respondents—the joint Brief of Amherst, Barnard, Bates, Bowdin, Brynmawr, Carleton, Colby,

Connecticut, Davidson, Franklin & Marshall, Hamilton, Hampshire, Haverford, Macalester,

Middlebury, Mount Holyoke, Oberlin, Pomona, Sarah Lawrence, Smith, Swarthmore, Trinity,

Vassar, Wellesley, and Williams Colleges, and Colgate, Wesleyan, and Tufts Universities—as

amici curiae in support of respondents; the joint Brief of 65 Leading American Businesses in

support of respondents; the joint Brief of Lt. General Julius R. Becton Jr., et al. as amici curiae in

support of respondents; the Brief for the United States as amicus curiae in support of petitioner in

Grutter; and the Brief of the Association of American Law Schools as amicus curiae in support

of respondents.


14

not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in

today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely

diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints” (Grutter majority opinion, 2003, p. 330). She

then added:

What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States

military assert that, “[b]ased on [their] decades of experience,” a “highly qualified,

racially diverse officer corps . . . is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principle

mission to provide national security.” . . . To fulfill its mission, the military “must be

selective in admissions for training and education for the officer corps, and it must train

and educate a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps in a racially diverse

educational setting” (emphasis in original). We agree that “[i]t requires only a small step

from this analysis to conclude that our country’s other most selective institutions must

remain both diverse and selective.” (Grutter majority opinion, 2003, p. 331)

Ironically, despite the fact that the University of Michigan affirmative action cases drew

an impressive number of amicus curiae briefs in support of race-conscious policies from a vast

cross-section of groups and individuals, including public and private colleges and universities,

educational foundations and professional organizations, politicians, as well as leading corporate

executives, it was the Military Brief which proved to be a central player in the Court’s decision

to endorse the limited use of race in higher education (Groner, 2003; Moller, 2004; Parker, 2006;

Walbot & Lang, 2003).

In the wake of the Court’s decision in Grutter both legal and social science analysts have

recognized the powerful impact of the Green Brief. For example, in the Winter 2003-2004 issue

of The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education editors remarked,

Almost all Supreme Court observers agree that [the] brief arguing the case for the

military was a critical influence on the outcome of the Grutter case. Even opponents of

racial preferences agreed that the brief was a brilliant piece of litigating strategy. The

military leaders’ brief gave notice to the conservative members of the Supreme Court that


15

if they ruled against the University of Michigan, they would in effect be denying the

military what they believe was needed in order to ensure national security. (2003, p. 36)10

In addition to accolades, scholars have also problematized the role and impact of the

Military Brief. For instance, Brown-Nagin (2005) posits that a key reason that the Supreme

Court found the Military Brief compelling was because it represented “centrist arguments” of

“powerful constituencies” like “business, academic, and professional elites who championed the

University of Michigan’s race-conscious admissions policies” (p. 1441). Lipson (2008) has also

suggested that while a traditionally conservative organization like the military may have helped

forestall affirmative action’s demise, the military’s distinct reasoning to support affirmative

action has also likely contributed to colorblind utilitarian rationales to justify race-conscious

policies. In the end, whatever the reasoning or critiques, the truth remains that race-conscious

affirmative action survived its most serious legal challenge since Bakke in large part not because

of the voluminous research literature presented in defense of affirmative action but because of

the amicus curiae brief filed by a collective of former high-ranking officers and civilian Army,

Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps leaders. To follow, I explain how the Military’s focus on

diversifying its leadership corps proved to be critical in the Supreme Court’s support of race-

conscious affirmative action policies in Grutter and reiterated once more in both Fisher I and

Fisher II. I then describe how the Military’s explicit focus and reasoning for diversifying its

10

Toobin (2007) has also acknowledged the importance of the Brief of the Retired Generals in

Support of Michigan. He explains, “Amicus briefs are rarely mentioned in the Supreme Court

oral arguments, but four justices (O’Connor, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Souter) had referred to the

military brief in the first several minutes of Grutter [‘s oral argument]” (p. 219).


16

leadership corps provides a much-needed, if imperfect, ideological model for diversifying

leadership in higher education.

Leadership as Mission Critical

There is much speculation as to why the Supreme Court was so compelled by the

Military’s amicus brief in Grutter. Undoubtedly knowing more about the history and context in

which the brief was filed begins to provide insight. For instance, as Moller (2004) recounts, it is

very important to note that “[o]ral arguments in Grutter were heard on April 1, 2003—less than

two weeks after the commencement of the American march on Baghdad” (p. 108).

Understanding this timing is crucial. At the same time that the future of affirmative action

unfolded before the Supreme Court, the nation was thoroughly immersed in a post-9/11 war on

terror, including the dawn of combat in “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Knowing this context, we

begin to understand why the justices may have been particularly drawn to the Military Brief.

According to the Military Brief, the issue at hand was not solely about university admissions, but

rather about “the military’s ability to fulfill it missions,” most important of which was national

security (Consolidated Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as amici curiae in Support of

Respondents 2003, p. 1). In order to accomplish this, the brief emphasized the importance of

producing a “highly qualified, racially diverse, officer corps” (Consolidated Brief of Lt. Gen.

Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as amici curiae in Support of Respondents 2003, p. 1). To underscore

this point, the Military Brief offered the justices an important historical retrospective on the

integration of the military and its leadership corps. This history included detailing the violent

racial strife that has hindered previous military operations, in particular during the Vietnam War.

The brief recounted:

In the 1960s and 1970s . . . while integration increased the percentage of African-

Americans in the enlisted ranks, the percentage of the minority officers remained


17

extremely low, and perceptions of discrimination were pervasive. This deficiency in the

officer corps and the discrimination perceived to be its cause led to low morale and

heightened racial tension. The danger this created was not theoretical, as the Vietnam era

demonstrates. (Consolidated Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as amici curiae in

Support of Respondents 2003, p. 6)

The brief explained in detail that the heightened racial tension, which included physical

and mortal violence within and across ranks, was due in large part to racially segregated and

stratified leadership corps—officer/leadership positions overwhelmingly occupied by white

personnel. “The lack of minority officers substantially exacerbated the problems throughout the

armed forces” (Consolidated Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as amici curiae in

Support of Respondents 2003, p. 6). Indeed, citing Moskos and Butler the Green Brief in

Grutter recounted, “[t]he military’s leadership recognized that its racial problem was so critical

that it was on the verge of self-destruction” (Consolidated Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr.

et al as amici curiae in Support of Respondents 2003, p. 16). As a result, the Military recognized

the need to act upon diversifying its leadership. After all, “[t]he chasm between the racial

composition of the officer corps and the enlisted personnel undermined military effectiveness in

a variety of ways” (Consolidated Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al as amici curiae in

Support of Respondents 2003, p. 14); not the least of which was jeopardizing both military

operations as well as the safety of its active duty members.

What makes the Green Brief’s arguments even more compelling is the acknowledgement

that the issues confronting the military do not lay just in the past. Citing the Department of

Justice’s 1995 Review of Federal Affirmative Action Programs, Report to the President, the

Grutter Military Brief details the following:

The (sic) current leadership views complete racial integration as a military necessity—that

is, as a prerequisite to a cohesive, and therefore effective, fighting force. In short, success

with the challenges of diversity is critical to national security (emphasis in original).

Experience during the 1960s and 1970s with racial conflict in the ranks was an effective


18

lesson in the importance of inclusion and equal opportunity. As a senior Pentagon official

told us, ‘Doing affirmative action the right way is deadly serious for us—people’s lives

depend on it.’” (Consolidated Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al as amici curiae in

Support of Respondents 2003, p. 13)

Undeniably the military’s emphasis on unit cohesion and national security is reminiscent of

Bell’s interest convergence dilemma. However, my objective in focusing on the military’s

attention to leadership diversity, even in its most imperfect forms, is intended to bring attention

to higher education’s lack of attention to leadership diversity within its own ranks.

To be clear, I recognize that the military and higher education represent two very distinct

organizations. However, I posit that there are also important similarities that allow for

comparison. To begin with, both organizations operate under the auspices of predominantly

white male leaders. Both the military and higher education are institutions that are relatively

bottom heavy with respect to diversity—that is diversity is most likely concentrated within lower

ranks (e.g. students and soliders). In addition, both organizations are confronted with responding

to the demographic realities of the twenty-first century, which include an ever-growing number

of historically minoritized populations (including women, historically under-represented people

of color, LGTBQ and non-gender conforming individuals, among others) seeking placement and

accommodations within historically white hetero-normative patriarchal structures. And while

some leadership theorists might suggest that the Military operates within an explicit top-down

chain of command system, as compared to higher education’s more diffuse shared governance

model. In explicitly reconsidering higher education leadership for social change, Astin and Astin

(2000) observed:

Most institutions of higher learning in the United States are organized and governed

according to seemingly contradictory sets of practices. On the one hand, what we have

come to call “the administration” in many respects resembles the traditional industrial or

military model of leadership, with chain of command structures comprising leadership

positions that are hierarchically arranged. Internally, there is hierarchical academic


19

command structure headed by the president, followed by vice presidents, deans, and

department chairs. Although the job titles may be different, a similar hierarchical structure

is usually found in nonacademic chains of command (student affairs, fiscal affairs,

development, administrative services, etc.). (p. 5)

Astin and Astin (2000) continue to explain how those at the bottom of these hierarchical

structures possess little, if any power. That is, with the exception of individual faculty—who

operate with a great deal of autonomy. Within this backdrop I suggest that the Military provides

a compelling ideological model for diversifying leadership in higher education.

To reiterate, it is not my intention to propose that the Military is operating within an

optimal problem-free environment. To the contrary, I recognize that there is much work to do to

achieve racial and gender parity within its leadership ranks. I concur with Knowles and

Vanlandingham (2013) who have declared that “the military still has a long way to go before it

truly reflects the nation it serves” (para 3). I also agree that “[d]espite substantial progress, racial

minorities remain underrepresented in upper ranks” (ibid). Knowles and Vanlandingham’s

assessment that the military needs to pay specific attention to the plight of women within its

ranks is especially important. Likewise I concur with many of the points made in Dansby,

Stewart, and Webb’s (2012) edited volume, which suggest that much work remains in to be done

within the military to live up to the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute’s

(DEOMI) vision.

Nevertheless, I maintain that the Military’s commitment towards leadership diversification,

especially as espoused within the Grutter, Fisher I, and Fisher II amicus briefs serves to provide

an important ideological model for leadership diversification in higher education. Along these

lines, I offer Feagin’s (2014) analysis. As Feagin (2014) clarifies, “[t]oday the Army, which has

the largest proportion of black personnel in the military, is probably the most desegregated of

larger historically white institutions” (p. 286). Feagin further explains that the proportion of


20

black American officers in today’s Army “has been shown to be significantly higher than it is

among executives in most large corporations. Today, thousands of black officers constitute the

largest group of black executive in any historically white organization” (p. 286). These

outcomes of course are as a result of very purposeful efforts, including punishing overt

discrimination by white personnel and rewarding officers who work in support of desegregation

efforts. Feagin (2014) also explains that the Army requires courses on “racial, ethnic, and gender

issues, and diversity in units is often taken into account in personnel decisions” (p. 286). So as

to eschew deficit explanations for the military’s success, Feagin argues:

Rather than lower standards, the Army has often set up programs to bring personal skills to

levels necessary for satisfactory performance and promotion. These educational programs

are usually well crafted and relatively brief, and have generally been successful in

providing many black personnel and other personnel of color with the skills necessary to

meet military entrance and promotion standards. (2014, p. 286)

In summation, “Army programs demonstrate that much more can be done to reduce and

remedy historic discrimination” (ibid). Indeed, as Feagin intimates, given real opportunities

historically minoritized populations can excel “in the job structure of a historically white

institution” (2014, p. 286). I posit that higher education can apply some of these same lessons to

tackling the issue of leadership diversification, or the lack thereof.

Discussions and debates around the merits and future of race-conscious policies in higher

education have historically focused on undergraduate admissions. Even when the epicenters of

iconic affirmative action cases like Bakke (1978) and Grutter (2003) are localized in graduate

study, such as medical school and law school, the vast majority of scholarship and conversations

around affirmative action revolve around undergraduate student diversity. Only recently has

more attention been paid to the impact of affirmative action in diversifying graduate study and

how the elimination of race-conscious policies have important repercussions beyond


21

undergraduate admissions (Cross & Slater, 1997; Garces, 2012, 2013; Garces & Mickey-Pabello,

2015). Even so the study and attention to affirmative action practices post-baccalaureate

attainment is an area that remains under-developed; most especially when it comes to leadership.

In this paper, I add to the conversation around this topic by problematizing leadership

diversification in higher education. In this attempt I purposefully embrace a broad definition of

leadership—I urge diversification not just at the highest administrative levels, but also along the

professoriate through the tenure and promotion of historically minoritized faculty.11

After all,

data reveal that the advancement of faculty of color in higher education is stagnant at best

(Hammond, 2015; Turner, Gonzalez, & Wood, 2008; U.S. Dept of Education, 2015). Moreover,

I suggest that there are important parallels between leadership diversification in the military and

in higher education. For instance, just as ‘[t]he scarcity of black officers intensified black

grievances’ (Consolidated Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as amici curiae in Support

of Respondents 2003, p. 16) within military ranks, I posit that the scarcity of tenured professors

and administrators of color within higher education intensifies grievances for historically

marginalized populations. As the Military Brief in Fisher I explained, “a highly qualified and

11

Within the military structure there are significant differences between “commissioned” and

“non-commissioned” officers. The most basic distinction is that commissioned officers are

appointed to their posts—usually by the President—while non-commissioned officers rise

through the ranks to their posts. Commissioned officers yield more power and authority than

their counterparts. Commissioned officers are also most likely procure their appointment after

postsecondary training. For more detail see

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-nco-and-

commissioned-officer/


22

racially diverse officer corps is not a lofty ideal” (Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as

Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents 2012, p. 1). Likewise, in higher education leadership

diversity should be the rule rather than the exception. To follow I explain how the current

historic moment provides particular impetus towards leadership diversification in higher

education. Furthermore, I suggest that the Military’s explicit race-conscious approach to racial

integration provides postsecondary scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers with an

opportunity to reimagine and work towards recapturing the moral imperative that informs

affirmative action’s compensatory or restorative justice rationale, which has been all but

abandoned in higher education.

Meeting “The Demands”: Utilizing Diversified Leadership to Challenge Structured

Inequity and Recover the Restorative Justice Rationale

Gradually, the framing and reasoning surrounding the rationales used by proponents of

race-conscious affirmative action have shifted and changed. A main reason for these changes has

been responding to legal precedents. For example, most notably, in the wake of the Supreme

Court’s ruling in Bakke (1978), post-secondary institutions embraced the “diversity rationale”

above all other reasoning offered by UC Davis to justify their use of affirmative action in

medical school.12

Since Bakke, contemporary arguments in support of affirmative action, both

12

In Bakke the University of California, Davis’s medical school offered four reasons to explain

their reliance of race-conscious affirmative action policies. These rationales included, 1)

reducing the historic deficit of historically under-represented minorities in medical schools and

in the medical profession; 2) countering the effects of societal discrimination (also known as the

“remedial rationale”; 3) increasing the number of physicians who will practice in underserved

communities; and 4) obtaining the educational benefits that flow from an ethnically diversity


23

inside and outside of the courtroom, have been predisposed to support the diversity rationale

(Brown-Nagin, 2005; Liu, 1998).

There are several reasons why the diversity rationale has proven persuasive. At its core,

Associate Justice Lewis Powell’s reasoning in support of the diversity rationale in Bakke

recognized the pedagogical benefits that come with students being exposed to people different

from themselves, especially on college settings within an atmosphere of ‘speculation,

experiment, and creation’ (Bakke majority opinion 1978, p. 312). As Justice Powell intimated

and researchers have since proven, the civic benefits of diversity extend well beyond college

(Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004; Hurtado, 2005; Jayakumar, 2008).

A correlated defense of the diversity rationale suggests that having racially diverse access

to institutions within which affirmative action is practiced is necessary because it is within these

institutions that tomorrow’s leaders are trained. Citing Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967),

Powell reasoned, “The Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to

that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a multitiude of tongues…” (Bakke

majority opinion 1978, p. 312). And as evidenced in the High Courts decisions in Grutter and

Fisher I, as well as in amicus briefs supporting affirmative action in each of these cases, attention

to leadership diversification has become a core tenet in the defense of affirmative action since

Bakke. Ironically, while the Supreme Court has explicitly recognized the importance of

leadership, the Court has seemed to pay less attention to the racial composition of those who

teach and train tomorrow’s leaders—that is the faculty.

student body (also known as the “diversity rationale”) (Bakke 1978, p. 306). The Supreme Court

endorsed only the diversity rationale, leaving all three other rationales to whither.


24

I posit that we are living an especially pronounced historical moment in higher education

that echoes the context within which the military moved towards race-conscious affirmative

action to diversity its leadership. Indeed, just as the military justified their attention to leadership

diversification because of the racial strife and physical and mortal danger in which soldiers found

themselves as a result of a racially stratified leadership corps; so too should higher education

attend to the corrosive and combustible campus cultures within which so many minoritized

students find themselves (Museus & Jayakumar, 2012; Museus, Ledesma, & Parker, 2015;

Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solorzano, 2009). Student-lead movements such as the “Black Lives

Matter” movement and the undocumented or “DREAMER” movement, among others, provide

contemporary examples of the precarious conditions within which minoritzed students

experience higher education. In the Fisher II the Military Brief explains, ‘[r]acial conflict within

the military during the Vietnam era was a blaring wakeup call to the fact that equal opportunity

is absolutely indispensible to unit cohesion, and therefore critical to military effectiveness and

our national security’ (Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as Amicus Curiae in Support

of Respondents, Fisher v. University of Texas, 2015, p. 9). So too, I argue that the racial conflict

being experienced on today’s college campuses is a blaring wakeup call for postsecondary

institutions to attend to the lingering absence of racially diverse leaders—including tenured

faculty—on their campuses. Moreover, a consistent theme across demands-lists produced by

minoritized students across 77 postsecondary institutions in response to the systemic and

structural racism on their campuses calls for increased numbers of minoritized faculty, as well as

the promotion and advancement (tenure) of existing minoritized faculty.13

Indeed, within their amicus briefs the Military has provided a compelling set of lessons

13

See http://www.thedemands.org/ for additional information.

http://www.thedemands.org/


25

from which postsecondary scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers who support race-conscious

affirmative action policies in higher education can learn. Herein, the Military’s explicit focus and

reasoning for diversifying its leadership corps provides a much-needed ideological model for

diversifying leadership in higher education. Equally compelling the Military’s explicit race-

conscious approach to racial integration provides an important impetus for postsecondary

scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers to reimagine and work towards recapturing the moral

imperative that informs affirmative action’s compensatory or restorative justice rationale. As

Frymer and Skrentny (2003) recount, “Affirmative action in the United States has been cut loose

from its moorings in the nation’s tragic history of racial oppression and the law that developed to

remedy that oppression. Increasingly, it is rooted in strategies to maximize the performance of

institutions” (p. 721). The Military provides a forceful, if imperfect, example for reclaiming an

explicitly race-conscious restorative justice rationale. After all, the reason that the Military

historically embraced and continues to support leadership diversification within its leadership

corps is because race has mattered, and race still matters. In framing their move towards

leadership diversification, the Fisher II Military Brief explains “…diversity in the officer

corps…is not merely a laudable goal—it is a strategic imperative” (Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W.

Becton, Jr. et al. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents, Fisher v. University of Texas,

2015, p. 16). So too in higher education, leadership diversity is imperative in addressing and

alleviating historically racist campus cultures, people’s lives depend on it.


26

References

Abrams, R. M. (1989). The US military and higher education: A brief history. The Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science, 502, 15-28.

Alt, W.E. & Alt, B.L. (2002). Black soldiers, white wars: Black warriors from antiquity to the

present. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Asch, B.J., Buck, C., Klerman, J.A., Kleykamo, M., & Loughran, D.S. (2009). Military

enlistment of Hispanic youth: Obstacles and opportunities. Santa Monica, CA: RAND

Corporation. Retrieved from

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG773.pdf

Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership Reconsidered: Engaging Higher Education in

Social Change. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED444437.pdf

Bell Jr, D. A. (1979). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence

dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93, 518-533.

Bell, D. (2004). Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the unfulfilled hopes for

racial reform. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr., Adm. Dennis Blair, Maj. Gen. Charles Bolden. Hon.

James M. Cannon, Lt. Gen. Daniel W. Christman, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Sen. Max

Cleland, Adm. Archie Clemins, Hon. William Cohen, Adm. William J. Crowe, Gen.

Ronald R. Fogelman, Lt. Gen. Howard D. Graves, Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, Sen. Robert J.

Kerrey, et al. as Amici Curiae in support of Respondents. Grutter v. Bollinger et al., No.

02-241 (2003); Gratz v. Bollinger et al., No. 02-516 (2003).

Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr., Gen. John P. Abizaid, Adm Dennis C. Blair, Gen. Bryan

Doug Brown, Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman, Gen Wesley K. Clark, Adm. Archie Clemins,


27

Gen. Ronald R. Fogelman, et al. as Amici Curiae in support of Respondents. Fisher v.

University of Texas, et at., No. 11-345 (2013).

Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr., Adm. Gen. John P. Abzaid, Adm. Dennis C. Blair, Maj.

Gen. Bryan Doug Brown, Gen. George Casey, Lt. Gen. Daniel W. Christman, Gen.

Wesley K. Clark, Adm. Archie Clemins, Gen Ann E. Dunwoody, Adm. Edmund P.

Giambastiani, Jr., et al. as Amici Curiae in support of Respondents. Fisher v. University

of Texas, et at., No. 14-981 (2015).

Brayboy, B. M. J. (2005). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education. The Urban

Review, 37(5), 425-446.

Brown, A. (2014). U.S. Hispanic and Asian populations growing, but for different reasons.

Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/26/u-s-hispanic-and-

asian-populations-growing-but-for-different-reasons/

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Brown-Nagin, T. (2005). Elites, social movements, and the law: The case of affirmative

action. Columbia Law Review, 1436-1528.

Buenavista, T. L. (2012). Citizenship at a cost: Undocumented Asian youth perceptions and the

militarization of immigration. Asian American and Pacific Islander Nexus, 10(1), 101-

124.

Buenavista, T. L., & Gonzales, J. B. (2010). DREAMs deterred: Filipino experiences and an

anti-militarization critique of the development, relief, and education for alien minors

act. Asian American Policy Review, 21, 29-

Burk, B. & Espinoza, E. (2012). Race relations within the U.S. military. Annual Review of

Sociology, 38, 401-422.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/26/u-s-hispanic-and-

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/26/u-s-hispanic-and-


28

Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2003). Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective

College Admissions. A Century Foundation Paper. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED482419.pdf

Carnevale, A. P., & Strohl, J. (2013). Separate and unequal: How higher education reinforces

the intergenerational reproduction of white racial privilege.

Chang, M. J. (1999). Does racial diversity matter?: The educational impact of a racially diverse

undergraduate population. Journal of College Student Development.

Cohen, A. M., & Kisker, C. B. (2009). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence

and growth of the contemporary system. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cokorinos, L. (2003). The assault on diversity: An organized challenge to racial and gender

justice. Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Crenshaw, K. W. (2007). Framing affirmative action. Michigan Law Review First

Impressions, 105, 123-123.

Cross, T., & Slater, R. B. (1997). Special report: Why the end of affirmative action would

exclude all but a very few blacks from America's leading universities and graduate

schools. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, (17), 8-17.

Dansby, M. R., Stewart, J. B., & Webb, S. C. (Eds.). (2012). Managing diversity in the military:

Research perspectives from the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute.

Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Delgado Bernal, D., Alemán, Jr. E., & Flores Carmona, J. (2008). Transnational and

transgenerational Latina/o cultural citizenship among kindergarteners, their parents, and

the University of Utah. Social Justice, 35(1), 28-49.


29

Delgado Bernal, D., Alemán, Jr. E., & Garavito, A. (2009). Latina/o undergraduate students

mentoring Latina/o elementary students: A borderlands analysis of shifting identities and

first-year experiences. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 560-585.

Dempsey, J.K. & Shapiro, R.Y. (2009). The Army’s Hispanic future. Armed Forces & Society,

35(3), 526-561.

Dixson, A. D., & Rousseau, C. K. (2005). And we are still not saved: Critical race theory in

education ten years later. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 7-27.

Donaldson, G.A. (1991). The history of African-Americans in the military. Malabar, FL: Krieger

Publishing Company.

Feagin, J. R. (2014) Racist America: Roots, current realities, and future reparations (3rd ed.).

New York: Routledge.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 133 St. Ct. 2411 (2013).

Fisher v. University of Texas, ___ St. Ct. ___ (2015).

Frymer, P. & Skrentny, J.D. (2003). Rise of instrumental affirmative action: Law and the new

significance of race in America. The Conneticut Law Review, 36, 667-.

Furumoto, R. (2005). No poor child left unrecruited: How NCLB codifies and perpetuates urban

school militarism. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38(3), 200-210.

Gándara, P. (2010). The Latino Education Crisis. Educational Leadership, 67(5), 24-30.

Garces, L. M. (2013). Understanding the impact of affirmative action bans in different graduate

fields of study. American Educational Research Journal.

Garces, L. M. (2012). Racial Diversity, Legitimacy, and the Citizenry: The Impact of affirmative

action bans on graduate school enrollment. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 93-

132.


30

Garces, L. M., & Mickey-Pabello, D. (2015). Racial diversity in the medical profession: The

impact of affirmative action bans on underrepresented student of color matriculation in

medical schools. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(2), 264.

Garza, I. (2015). Advertising patriotism: The “Yo Soy El Army” campaign and the politics of

visibility for Latina/o youth. Latino Studies, 13(2), 245-268.

Gratz v. Bollinger et al., 539 U.S. 244 (2003).

Groner, Jonathan. July 2, 2003. In ‘Grutter v. Bollinger’ amicus avalanche, one brief stood out.

Retrieved from http://www.law.com/jsp/law.LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1056139919083

Grutter v. Bollinger et al., 539 U.S. 203 (2003).

Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and

impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-367.

Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for

democratic citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17-34.

Hammond, R (Ed). (2015). The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac, 2015-16. The

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://www.icuf.org/newdevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Chronicle-Almanac-

2015-16.pdf

Hope, R.O. (1979). Racial strife in the U.S. military: Toward the elimination of discrimination.

New York: Praeger Publications.

Hurtado, S. (2005). The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations research. Journal of

Social Issues, 61(3), 595-610.

Jayakumar, U. (2008). Can higher education meet the needs of an increasingly diverse and global

society? Campus diversity and cross-cultural workforce competencies. Harvard


31

Educational Review, 78(4), 615-651.

Kerr, Clark. 2001. The uses of the university (5th

Edition). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Knowles, R. & Vanlandingham, R.E. (2013). Affirmative, sir! (and ma’am!): The U.S. military

needs affirmative action now more than ever. Retrieved from

https://newrepublic.com/article/113603/affirmative-action-us-military-still-essential

Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education:

Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Congressional Research Service

Reports. Paper 35. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=crsdocs

Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate IV, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. The

Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47-68.

Lipson, D. N. (2008). Where's the justice? Affirmative action's severed civil rights roots in the

age of diversity. Perspectives on Politics, 6(04), 691-706.

Liu, G. (1998). Affirmative action in higher education: The diversity rationale and the

compelling interest test. Havard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 33, 381-442.

Lutz, A. (2008) Who joins the military?: A look at race, class, and immigration status. Journal of

Political and Military Sociology, 36(2), 167-188.

Lutz, C., & Bartlett, L. (1995). Making soldiers in the public schools: An analysis of the Army

JROTC curriculum (Rep.). National Youth & Militarism Program, American Friends

Service Committee.

MacGregor Jr., M.J. (1981). Integration on the armed forces, 1940-1965 (Vol.1). Washington,

D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Mariscal, J. (2003). Latinos on the front lines: Again. Latino Studies, 1, 347-351.


32

Mariscal, J. (2004, November). No where else to go: Latino youth and the poverty draft. Political

Affairs.

Mariscal, J. (2005). Homeland security, militarism, and the future of Latinos and Latinas in the

United States. Radical History Review, 93, 39-50.

Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A

research-based perspective. Washington, DC: Association American Colleges and

Universities.

Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., Hurtado, S., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing campus

climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review of

Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302.

Moller, M.K. (2004). Race, “national security,” and unintended consequnces: A sideways glane

at Brown v. Board of Education at fifty. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 36,

101-128.

Monforti, J. L., & McGlynn, A. (2010, September). The poverty draft? Exploring the role of

socioeconomic status in US military recruitment of Hispanic students. In annual meeting

of the American Political Science Association, September (pp. 2-5).

Moskos, C.C., & Butler, J.S. (1996). All the we can be: Black leadership and racial integration

the army way. New York: BasicBooks.

Museus, S. D., & Jayakumar, U. M. (Eds.). (2012). Creating campus cultures: Fostering success

among racially diverse student populations. New York; Routledge.

Museus, S. D., Ledesma, M. C., & Parker, T. L. (2015). Racism and Racial Equity in Higher

Education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 42(1), 1-112.


33

Nalty, B.C. & MacGregor, M.J. (1981). Blacks in the military: Essential documents.

Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc.

Pew Research Center. (2015). Parenting in America: Outlook, worries, aspirations are strongly

linked to financial situation. Retrieved from:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/17/parenting-in-america/

Oseguera, L., & Astin, A. W. (2004). The declining" equity" of American higher education. The

Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 321-341.

Parker, W. (2006). The Story of Grutter v. Bollinger: Affirmative Action Wins. Wake Forest

University Legal Studies Research Paper. Retrieved March 23, 2016 from

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=929706

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 98 S.Ct.2733 (1978).

Saltman, K. J. & Gabbard, D. A. (Eds.). (2003). Education as enforcement: The militarization

and corportization of schools. New York, NY: RoutlegeFalmer.

Saltman, K. J. & Gabbard, D. A. (Eds.). (2011). Education as enforcement: The militarization

and corportization of schools (2nd

ed.). New York, NY: RoutlegeFalmer.

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.

Smith, D. G., & Schonfeld, N. B. (2000). The Benefits of Diversity: What the Research Tells

Us. About Campus, 5(5), 16-23.

Solorzano, D. G., Villalpando, O., & Oseguera, L. (2005). Educational inequities and Latina/o

undergraduate students in the United States: A critical race analysis of their educational

progress. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 272-294.

Stepler, R. (2016). Hispanic, black parents see college degree as key for children’s success.

Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/24/hispanic-black-

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/17/parenting-in-america/

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=929706

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/24/hispanic-black-parents-see-college-degree-as-key-for-childrens-success/


34

parents-see-college-degree-as-key-for-childrens-success/

Thelin, J.R. (2011). A history of American higher education (2nd ed,). Baltimore: John Hopkins

University Press.

Toobin, Jeffrey. (2007). The nine: Inside the secret world of the Supreme Court. New York:

Doubleday.

Turner, C.S.V., Gonzalez, J.C., & Wood, J.L. (2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20

years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 139-168.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The Condition

of Education 2015 (NCES 2015-144),Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty. Retrieved

from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61

Walbolt, S. H., & Lang Jr, J. H. (2003). Amicus Briefs Revisited. Stetson Law Review, 33, 171-

180.

Wong, L., Bliese, P., & McGurk, D. (2003). Military leadership: A context specific review. The

Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 657-692.

Yosso, T., Smith, W., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. (2009). Critical race theory, racial

microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard

Educational Review, 79(4), 659-691.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/24/hispanic-black-parents-see-college-degree-as-key-for-childrens-success/

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cuf.asp

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61

Leadership as Mission Critical: Latinas/os, the … › bitstream › handle › 10919 ›...

Documents

Transcript of Leadership as Mission Critical: Latinas/os, the … › bitstream › handle › 10919 ›...